TM has a great lineup for amateur golfers. They have little irons or wedges played by professionals. Many professionals will just play there drivers and woods. There putter's aren't that impressive either. So TM tailors to the largest market out there, US!!!

But TM is great on marketing. The white clubhead is great because it was new in a time with social media and enhanced golf coverage, that they could get people to say, "Hey, that pro is playing a TM, its a white driver". It might have been done before, but timing wise, it was perfect.

But TM is great on marketing. The white clubhead is great because it was new in a time with social media and enhanced golf coverage, that they could get people to say, "Hey, that pro is playing a TM, its a white driver". It might have been done before, but timing wise, it was perfect.

Uh, no.

TM applied optic science to the club head. Its origins are not marketing, even though you've made them a marketing genius.

White is easier to aim against a black face. There is actual research in it. TM also applied for a patent on the idea:

OK, now back to the science of white golf club heads. TaylorMade recently had a patent application publish as US Pub. No. 20120094782 titled “Contrast-Enhanced Golf Club Heads,” which describes the invention as:

Golf club heads include white diffusing top surfaces to aid in club head alignment. Wood type club heads also include a dark diffusing club face so that a crown/face border is emphasized. Scorelines in wood type clubs can be provided with an intermediate contrast surface, and can be displaced from club face center to accommodate player perception when confronted with a white diffusing crown.

The point is, and which many of you refuse to accept because of some irrational obsession about TM and marketing, and dismissing everything else - is that TM makes clubs fit for professionals - Luke Donald is a Mizuno player who uses TM Drivers. There are others.

TM applied optic science to the club head. Its origins are not marketing, even though you've made them a marketing genius.

White is easier to aim against a black face. There is actual research in it. TM also applied for a patent on the idea:

OK, now back to the science of white golf club heads. TaylorMade recently had a patent application publish as US Pub. No. 20120094782 titled “Contrast-Enhanced Golf Club Heads,” which describes the invention as:

Golf club heads include white diffusing top surfaces to aid in club head alignment. Wood type club heads also include a dark diffusing club face so that a crown/face border is emphasized. Scorelines in wood type clubs can be provided with an intermediate contrast surface, and can be displaced from club face center to accommodate player perception when confronted with a white diffusing crown.

The point is, and which many of you refuse to accept because of some irrational obsession about TM and marketing, and dismissing everything else - is that TM makes clubs fit for professionals - Luke Donald is a Mizuno player who uses TM Drivers. There are others.

Every OEM has a strength.

Actually white is very annoying to line up to :p, my personal preference kills the science, got to love outliers :p

Sorry could help myself, i hate white clubheads, they make me uncomfortable.

No, i made my point fine, Taylormade is very much a driver & Wood company, they make them very good. But there selection of tour irons is very limited, and there selection of GI to super GI irons are much more. Meaning they market, target a broad base of customers, us amateurs. Mizuno doesn't do this, they have 4-5 different types of irons for very good golfers. Titliest is similar in the Mizuno mold.

What white does is, it makes a driver look bigger, its something artist known for a long time. dark colors are slimming, light colors are not. So, they can make a driver look bigger. This bugs me, but it probably helps in alignment. I think there technology were they have an adjustable plate at the underside of the driver that allows you to sit the driver down either; square, neutral, open, probably helps more. If white was such a great enhancer of alignment, then why ad an alignment aid such as that? Just curious, to me its a waste of resources to double down on the same enhancement. To me, they can make all the research on optics they want. One thing i know is, optics is a very hard thing to define in science. Ever were glasses?. This guy who got eye surgery told me he had no clue how much things looked smaller now. Because glasses act as a magnifier, it will also cause distortion on the edges, like door frames will look bent. But he had surgery that really enhanced his eyes, it was strange because suddenly his dog looked smaller. He had no clue, because he wore glasses all his life. So the point is, your mind will adjust optics. So they can throw a white driver out there, have people say, "Oh yea, this lines up better", well maybe its because its something new, when they played golf with a black driver all there life. I tried this out once, i used a marker and highlighed the base groove on my irons. I was able to tell if my club was lined up right. I remember some older irons actually painted there bottom groove white to help with alignment. So any color besides one you know will help. This tells me one thing, there is a science behind it, but if every driver went white, in 10 years someone will change it to blue and they will be able to line up better. But there is one thing that did help, a white driver, like painting grass edge around the cup on the green white, stands out on TV. When you get something that's different, and its a good product, you will improve sales.

Never been a fan of TaylorMade equipment, the Penta 5 layer ball notwithstanding.

When I went looking for a new set of clubs last year I looked at Adams, Mizuno, Callaway, and Titleist. Taylormade never even entered my mind as an option.

I was later disappointed when I found out that TM bought Adams ... sad.

I hadn't bought anything TM (except for the LDP Red Golf balls) for over 14 years until recently. I'd only consider the Drivers, RBZ woods and hybrids - Other makers design and manufacture irons, wedges, and putters, that fit my needs better.

As to Adams, from all reports, TM was treating them separately. But some of their talent went to Callaway with Chip Brewer - and a former Adams guy designed the XHots. And coincidentally, Adams gear has been relatively quiet on golf forums this year.

Back to King's comment.
1. Doesn't the guy have the right to express his opinion?
2. Is Tiger a god that any claim that he is not the for-all / end-all of the sport constitutes blasphemy? From some of the posts on here, the wood is being laid for the burning of a heretic.
3. Aren't there senses in which King's statement might be true? For example--
A. What can you say about a sport that is defined by one person? Is that a healthy sport?
B. 90+% of Tiger's income came from endorsements, all of which comes from consumers because the companies that pay megabucks to Tiger pass along their costs to consumers. In that sense alone, Tiger's example and that of the others like McIlroy who seek to follow him simply raise the costs of playing the sport.
C. As far as fandom, who wants to see one guy lock up all the championships? Who wants to see the overdog win and the underdog lose? Following pro golf is a lot more fun now than it was 10 years ago, imo.

No one has said that King doesn't have a right to express his opinion. For some reason, this sentiment always makes its way into threads when there is a general consensus that someone is wrong, and I'm not exactly sure why.

He has all the right in the world to say whatever he wants, just as we all have he right to disagree with him, and to not buy his products.

No one has said that King doesn't have a right to express his opinion. For some reason, this sentiment always makes its way into threads when there is a general consensus that someone is wrong, and I'm not exactly sure why.

He has all the right in the world to say whatever he wants, just as we all have he right to disagree with him, and to not buy his products.

Agreed, having a difference of opinion doesn't mean one side doesn't have the right to say that opinion. Its like the arguement that if you disagree with Obama you must be a racist. Or you must respect him because he's the president, another absurd notion. Kind has ever right to say what he wants, he just better be ready for the backlash/responses to his comments.

What exactly is King saying? From the statement quoted, I don't think we can say for sure. Might be a comment on the golf industry and the competitive economic environment. Might be about golf as a sport. Do we really know what he was driving at?

And is it an attack on Tiger Woods? Some here react as though King is being racist, an orientaphobe for example. Sorry; Tiger is not God nor the Pope nor the president. And if he were, so what? All three of those are criticized all the time. I am reminded of the Yiddish saying "If God lived in the stetl, every night his windows would be broken out." So it is for the Pope, for the president, for Tiger Woods. Who cares?

Yeah, ever since Tiger Woods came on the scene, seems like there is some A-H yelling out "In the hole! In the hole!!" at tournaments. Makes you want to turn off the TV sound, but then you'd miss the dulcet tones of Johnny Miller. That alone has to herald the end of golf as we know it.

We have no clue as to what King meant but all these reactions are flying around like somebody's ox just got gored. What ox?

Remember that Powerbilt ad where they said that the cost of player endorsements were a bidding war that threatened to eat up their bottom line, that they were dropping player endorsements? That they were giving their customers a better cheaper product by not throwing money at players?
I think that's what King meant. Purely a business comment about the business of golf. And if that was what King meant he'd have been right. IMO.Edited by Ole_Tom_Morris - 4/30/13 at 11:10am

This comment, at least from TM's prospective of new club sales, reminds me a bit of the comments we hear from record company executives whining about declining sales of CDs, as they attempt to blame it all on music pirating of MP3 and other downloadable files**. It altogether fails to take into consideration the impact of the internet and eBay on massively increasing the market for used goods. I buy 20 used CDs (or heavily discounted new ones off eBay or from an Amazon affiliated seller) for every new one I take out of the wrapper for which I've paid anything approaching retail price.

Similarly, in the past 12 years or so, the only significant golf items I've bought new aside from gloves and balls were two pairs of shoes, a bag and a current-model 3-wood that was only being discounted about $30 used on eBay last year. Plus a new wedge I bought off eBay for 65% off retail. I've bought three drivers, four sets of irons, and three wedges, all used off eBay in this time period.

I'm hardly alone in looking to save money on used equipment. Right now there are 211,000 auctions on eBay for golf clubs. In part to compete with online pressures, my biggest local golf store has greatly increased their used selection - they have about 5 barrels with at least 500 used wedges in them, plus probably 150+ used sets of irons and hundreds of used drivers and woods. That's probably double or triple what they offered a decade ago.

Golfers are spending many millions of dollars on used golf equipment these days that was not available or not available so readily in the pre-Tiger days of the internet (eBay started in 1995, Tiger turned pro in 1996). This factor certainly has to contribute toward TaylorMade's disappointment with its sales.

================

If Tiger was as blond and blue-eyed as his ex-wife, I wonder how much less criticism of his morality we'd see and hear. I'm guessing it would be a good 50% less.

Remember, all those "classy family-men" athletes in decades past did not have to deal with the paparazzi and the internet revealing what they were doing when they were away from home out on tour or at away games. Plus there was a tacit agreement between the old-style media men and celebrities to let the famous have their fun in privacy. Don't forget that something like 50% of all married people are supposed to have cheated on their spouses at some point in their marraiges, so it's not like Tiger's the devil incarnate. He was a man who had everything in world (as far as we know) who made some puzzlingly bad decisions, certainly. But a man who has contributed so much to charitable organizations, particularly those that help kids, is hardly in the bottom tenth of a percent as far as morality goes.

================

** A complete, off-topic aside to any record company executives out there: a major reason for your declining sales is that there's just no good music to buy anymore. That huge album buying demographic - males age 13-25 - hasn't stopped buying albums because they grew up, they have stopped buying albums because the rock music they loved and bought in droves during the 60's, 70's and 80's is essentially dead, driven into obscurity by the crappy pop and juvenile rap music you've promoted at the expense of rock. When there's nothing worth buying, people don't bother taking out their wallets.

that is absurd look at the numbers during the years of the "tiger" effect the amount of golf courses being built were at an all time high. Nike "came into the forefront of GOLF marketing. Which led way to taylormade to even tap into a dying market ( who other then the burner driver were an irrelevant company). Tiger became the "cool" swing to duplicate, working out getting into shape all became important POWER became bigger then the game and golf became a sport overnight for the masses. Nevermind the fact that purses on the PGA tour tripled and he was a different race then golf purists thought should be allowed to play. So i guess the moron CEO was right in his comment if this discussion is to refute his impact on the game.

I would not blame Tiger for the poor behaviour of society on or off the course. Anyone who has been playing for more than 20 years knows what I am talking about.

Tiger cannot be credited with the building of all the new golf courses in the late 90's and early 00's, that really belongs to the Baby Boomer bubble and Alan Greenspan's cheap money, both bubbles of which have popped.

True, the boom of the late 90's specifically the tech bubble, brought in a ton of new money. Golf is an expensive game, and a game were people can mingle and build networks. Its only natural that more golf courses be built.

To me, Tiger's biggest deal is getting young america back into the game of golf.

Back to King's comment.
1. Doesn't the guy have the right to express his opinion?
2. Is Tiger a god that any claim that he is not the for-all / end-all of the sport constitutes blasphemy? From some of the posts on here, the wood is being laid for the burning of a heretic.

King has the right to express his opinion. As the CEO of a public company, he should try to ensure his comments aren't viewed as offensive or inflammatory by his customers, unless his intent is to simply gain attention by being controversial, which some other CEO's like Trump do quite often.

While I don't credit Tiger for all the golf courses that were built, I think it's pretty obvious he had a positive impact on viewership and participation. Until Tiger hit the scene I never watched golf, but once I heard about how good he was, I became interested. I know many others, like myself, would have likely never watched golf or started playing golf if Tiger had not been such a dominating athlete in the sport.

This is not the first time King has made stupid / controversial comments. He likes to see his name in print and likely has taken a page out of Trumps book in believing there's no such thing as bad publicity. There might be an exception to that rule in that myself and a few others just on this board have decided not to support King's company as a result of his comments. Conversely, others may be inclined to buy his products because they agree with his statements. The 2013 financials will show if his comments helped or hurt TM.

No effect on the Economics? He's the first ever billion dollar athlete. I'm sure Nike would concur, along with all the TV Networks. Wonder if he'd change his mind if Tiger was hitting a TaylorMade driver.